More Microsoft Exclusives Will Hurt Sony PS4

For several years now, all you hear from biased gamers, as well as so called journalists is how Microsoft needs more exclusive games. That Halo, Forza, and Gears are giving gamer's fatigue. At the same time we also don't hear how unsuccessful many exclusives games can be. Remember Sega? The leader in exclusive games for not only console gaming, but the long gone arcade era. What happened to them? They are no longer a console manufacturer. So Does having exclusive games really determine a consoles success? If so Microsoft should make more. In fact Microsoft making more exclusives hurt Sony's chances with the PS4 being successful. Thekingslayer.com goes over the whole notion, and biased push of exclusive games on Microsoft. Good & Bad...
(PS4, Xbox One)

cod sales very high because its a multiplatform title. gears of war will always out sale drakes uncharted. not because its a better game, but because it has superior features, like multiplayer, hard and campaign co-op.

Both those games are close in sales , btw they are 2 different types of games when you think about it, gears is more of a blood/gore bro dude TPS while uncharted is more of an adventure/treasure hunting/hollywood TPS ! their both awesome games and close in sales

Overall Microsoft has experienced better sales for their exclusive games than Sony. Sony is not in the best financial situation, and it seems like this next generation will again be about who will have exclusive content, as well as developers. Both Sony, and Microsoft are working hard at that. Microsoft has benefited more than Sony in this regard with the Xbox 360. That's not an opinion. We used Halo 3's first week sales as benchmark which factually broke entertainment records for sales.

This is indeed an article based on the larger conversation that has surrounded Microsoft about getting more exclusive games. No one's looked at from the point of view that the few they have are successful. Making more won't hurt them, but it would hurt the PS4 because it'll be games that will sway more gamers to the Next Xbox. You guys don't see truth in that?

out of your list only 3 are sealers. the others are simply exclusives. and not that good of exclusives at that. check the sales before you start naming off stuff. don't get exclusive and popular sales item mixed up like you just did as does most PlayStation fans do. quality has always been better than quantity. Sony does game quantity and Microsoft does game quality. now do yourself a favor and take all of those 360 exclusives and compare the sales to all of the exclusives for ps3 sales numbers and you'll see that the ps3's exclusives can't compare.

Less exclusives = good for Microsoft More exclusives = good for Microsoft?

It's like you're incapable of seeing the situation from any other POV, you even label gamers who want more exclusives on the Xbox platform as "biased" right there in the description.

I'm afraid the only one coming off as biased here is you, it's more than obvious in your writing and confirmed in your comments here. If you want your site to be taken seriously as a source of gaming news and opinions you have to look at things with a much more objective mind, or at least come out and admit your bias so people can take it into account.

It sounds more like you're just cherry picking what to point out to suit the nonsensical opinion you've come up with.

Bringing up Sega is just flat out idiotic. They mismanaged their platforms for two generations. Exclusives can't save you if you fail at everything else. Hell, after a decade as a software-only company, Sega can't even get Sonic right. They've proven for the past decade they had no hope of sustaining a console with exclusives.

What's completely ignored is that the Saturn and Dreamcast went up against the PS1 and PS2. Two platforms that wiped the floor with everyone when it came to exclusives, and went on to become the two best selling consoles in history.

It's entirely nonsensical that you relate your opinion that Sega's exclusives were better than Nintendo's, to Sega's console business, which only came to an end after Sony had dominated the market with tons of exclusives for six or seven years.

What's even more ridiculous, is that after shooting down the importance of exclusives, you then talk up how MS having more exclusives will hurt Sony.

First half of the article... Better exclusives didn't help Sega!

Second half of the article... Better exclusives will help Microsoft!

As if that contradiction wasn't bad enough, you then talk about Microsoft and Sony as if MS's exclusives live up to some higher standard that Sony's don't. You back this up with nothing. No sales data comparisons. No Metacritic averages. Nothing, besides "ZOMG HALO sells so much!". You talk about overall quality and sales, without any evidence to support it.

To top it all off, you ignore all of MS's failures, as if their reliance on Halo, Gears, and Forza is a result of some incredibly high standard MS set for themselves, that will carry over into next-gen, to Sony's detriment.

You blatantly ignore the heap of recent mediocre Kinect games Microsoft has released, along with all their core-oriented commercial or critical flops, like Too Human, Ninja Blade, Crackdown, and Kingdom Under Fire.

You act like none of those exist, and that the Gears/Halo/Forza line-up is purely the result of MS's tireless pursuit of quality, and any addition to that line-up will be pure gold. The reality is that MS has seen just as many flops as any publisher, but with such weak first party support, they haven't had the development muscle to fill the gaps left when devs like Silicon Knights or RealTime Worlds went to do their own thing.

This isn't about some "larger conversation" as you put it. It seems like this is just your lousy attempt at validating a conclusion you want to be true.

Anyone who takes M$ bloated American PR grandstanding seriously as fact should do his homework, dig research that company's history and character more deeply. seek it out. its a thrilling great adventure and the truth will set you free.

@Thekingslayer GT5 alone sold well over 10million units in the mist of a call of duty and an aggressive kinect launch.

Sony has more well established ips than MS does, if anything the only thing MS has over Sony is marketing dollars.

How can MS having more exclusives hurt Sony when both companies have been known to have their share of flops in the mix?

So we can look at resistance 3 sales, but not those of perfect dark zero or too human?lol

And by MS having more exclusives it doesnt mean Sony will stop having any of their own, specially considering how PlayStation is one of the companies main pillars since kaz became ceo. Also care to explain to us what are MS exclusives going to do in markets dominated by Sony and Nintendo like a Japan or Europe?

And what makes you seriously think more MS exclusives wont appear on the pc like they have all generation long?

Sony exclusives dont generally migrate outside of their platforms, and for that they have the subsideries like SoE which make games like planetside 2,Everquest 3,dc universe online ect. Check if anything they bring those games over to the consoles instead.

So you all are now saying that Playstation exclusives this generation have sold better than Microsoft exclusives? Better yet are you also claiming that Sony has more first party titles than Sega?

I'm not understanding what your point is when clearly the article is talking about "few" exclusives that Microsoft has compared to the many that Sony has. The whole point of the article is to contradict the theory that has circulated that Microsoft needs more. So the article plays with the idea that perhaps with the level of success that Microsoft has had they could use more. If they had more that were successful would that not hurt the Playstation 4? Would Sony really want to see an exclusive from Microsoft do what Halo 3 did by breaking entertainment sales records in a week? Most would think that would hurt.

Also,can someone send me a link to any Playstation exclusive title that has done what Halo 3 did? I'll have the author correct the post.

Please keep in mind, I know that controversy sells, but the editor is not hating on Sony. The big part that I personally think is important is that just because Sony has more exclusives it does not mean that a console will succeed based on that. History has shown that the console that ultimately does succeed has a balance of first party, and third party development. Name the system, and it can be proven.

Here is the thing whoever wrote this articles has to understand, Sony out of the 3 is the one with the most balance period.

The fact that they not only put out more exclusive ips and yet also have every single multiplatform game the other two have means they know what they are doing.

MS outsells everyone here in the U.S thanks in part to marketing, elsewhere Sony does well. Fact is Sony or any other company wouldnt be investing in ips if they werent making any profit. Sony makes a profit of these games, some more than others but the point remains.

And unlike Sega or Nintendo with the wiiu, Sony has the support of every major publisher out there, from EA, to bungie. Also Sony isnt known for releasing one too many platforms, they simply support their old ones for many years.

Not to sound like bias fanboy, but look at what Sony has been able to do despite its rough start this past gen. For a console with no games, condemn by the media, launching a year later at a higher price point and selling at a lost for the most part of the gen. I say they have a good formula, and despite what many say or think about their software one has to admire their efforts.

I swear if Sony stuck making the same old franchises from their previous platforms, then many of us wouldnt know what infamous,uncharted,littlebigpl anet,motorstorm,resistance,whi t e knight chronicles,heavy rain,journey,fat princess,gravity rush,,soul sacrifice,escape plan,heavenly sword, the last of us, beyond 2souls, are and how fun they are.

More doesnt hurt anyone,never has and it never will, more is options,more is better.

So you're defending a crappy article with the same "logic" that made it crappy in first place?

Good luck with that.

You know what can be proven?

The total sales of all Sony's exclusives is almost exactly the same as the total sales of all of Microsoft's exclusives.

I'd like to see you prove that the 360 has a better "balance" of games than the PS3... which should be tough, considering there are generally more third party games than first; logic follows, then, that the more exclusives a console has, the closer it comes to balancing out the third party multiplats that are also available. And if we're using your own ridiculous, out-of-your-ass "facts," then the PS3 should have been more successful than the 360... oh, it is. The point, though, is that even what you're saying doesn't favor the 360.

I don't know what's worse: the article, or the fact that you're defending it.

Ur entire argument is stupid and ridiculously ludicrous..... U say that all sony's exclusives sales is still less than all MS exclusive sales....in other words Sony exclusives< MS exclusives Then ur agreeing with the author smartass.....cause we all know Sony has more exclusives so by ur definition more still had less sales than less exclusive ....ur logic isn't logical at all...

Why do these articles never include that fact that when your userbase has 6 exclusives to choose from, versus the oppostions userbase having 45 exclusives to choose from, that the smaller exclusive library will sell better by default due to the Lack of variety?

All things being equal, variety creates gaps in sales due to the wide scope is choices. Gamers decide differently which ones to buy. When a set of gamers have only 5 choices, then of course they will sell more. The userbase purchasing power is focused upon those 5 games.